Mark 6:5 vs 6:2

[Ben C. Smith]

LOL Thank you Ben.

I never put it past others, and I never use apologetic sources of any kind, not that any link you posted did. Obviously it is an epic piece since it has been so popular for a few thousand years.

It appeals to more modern tastes than Matthew and Luke, I think. Literary criticism is the main subfield that seems to hold Mark up as a genius; personally, I see their point, but I think it can be taken too far.

[gmx]

what is the original story, other than that of a failed messianic teacher?

There was no original story. If he lived he was just another crucified teacher in Galilean cultures.

The mythology and theology developed in the Diaspora by people looking to divorce cultural Judaism.

And why would anyone take that story and say "this looks like a good candidate for building a new religion on"?

Nobody did that.


He was martyred after his death, due to a perceived selfless sacrifice as he fought the temple corruption when his own disciples ran for the hills.


The mythology and theology slowly developed and was added to yearly at Passover when Hellenistic Proselytes returned yearly for the party/BBQ


There was no one center of this movement, there were many origins all based on martyrdom, and when the movement gained traction they competed against the Emperors divinity all over the Diaspora.

The difficulty with this is that for the movement to have many origins that ultimately converge on the Jesus story, there needs to be a common backstory that is powerful and inspiring enough in its own right to trigger the spontaneous outbreak of homogenous myth-making. If they are not all riffing off the same backstory, then they're not sources for the same mythology. It's hard to see a sufficiently captivating narrative for the Jesus movement to begin developing and evolving from, without divinity being part of the original recipe.